2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard Final

AUGUST 2015
2015
URBAN MOBILITY
Scorecard
2015 URBAN MOBILITY SCORECARD
Published jointly by The Texas A&M Transportation Institute and INRIX
David Schrank
Research Scientist
Bill Eisele
Senior Research Engineer
Tim Lomax
Research Fellow
And
Jim Bak
Research Analyst
Texas A&M Transportation Institute
The Texas A&M University System
mobility.tamu.edu
INRIX, Inc.
inrix.com
August 2015
DISCLAIMER
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are
responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented
herein.
Acknowledgements
Shawn Turner, David Ellis and Phil LasleyConcept and Methodology Development
Michelle Young, Lauren Simcic and Cheyenne McWilliamsReport Preparation
Lauren Geng and Jian ShenGIS Assistance
Tobey LindseyWeb Page Creation and Maintenance
Richard Cole, Bernie Fette, Michelle Hoelscher and Rick Davenport Media Relations
John HenryCover Artwork
Dolores Hott and Nancy PippinPrinting and Distribution
Rick Schuman and Myca Craven of INRIXTechnical Support and Media Relations
2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard
ii
Table of Contents
Page
2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard .................................................................................................. 1
Turning Congestion Data Into Insight ......................................................................................... 3
One Page of Congestion Problems ............................................................................................ 5
More Detail About Congestion Problems.................................................................................... 6
The Trouble With Planning Your Trip ........................................................................................10
The Future of Congestion .........................................................................................................11
Congestion Relief An Overview of the Strategies ...................................................................12
Analysis Using the Best Congestion Data & Analysis Methodologies .......................................14
National Performance Measurement .........................................................................................15
Concluding Thoughts ................................................................................................................17
References ...............................................................................................................................39
iii

The national congestion recession is over. Urban areas of all sizes are experiencing the challenges seen
in the early 2000s population, jobs and therefore congestion are increasing. The U.S. economy has
regained nearly all of the 9 million jobs lost during the recession and the total congestion problem is
larger than the pre-recession levels. For the report and congestion data on your city, see:
http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums.
The data from 1982 to 2014 (see Exhibit 1) show that, short of major economic problems, congestion
will continue to increase if projects, programs and policies are not expanded.
The problem is very large. In 2014, congestion caused urban Americans to travel an extra 6.9 billion
hours and purchase an extra 3.1 billion gallons of fuel for a congestion cost of $160 billion. Trucks
account for $28 billion (17 percent) of that cost, much more than their 7 percent of traffic.
From 2013 to 2014, 95 of Americas 100 largest metro areas saw increased traffic congestion, from
2012 to 2013 only 61 cities experienced increases.
In order to reliably arrive on time for important freeway trips, travelers had to allow 48 minutes to
make a trip that takes 20 minutes in light traffic.
Employment was up by more than 500,000 jobs from 2013 to 2014 (1); if transportation investment
continues to lag, congestion will get worse. Exhibit 2 shows the historical national congestion trend.
More detailed speed data on more roads and more hours of the day from INRIX (2) a leading private
sector provider of travel time information for travelers and shippers, have caused congestion
estimates in most urban areas to be higher than in previous Urban Mobility Scorecards.
The best mobility improvement programs involve a mix of strategies adding capacity of all kinds,
operating the system to get the best bang for the buck, travel and work schedule options and
encouraging homes and jobs to be closer. This involves everyone - agencies, businesses, manufacturers,
commuters and travelers. Each region should use the combination of strategies that match its goals
and vision. The recovery from economic recession has proven that the problem will not solve itself.
Exhibit 1. Major Findings of the 2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard (471 U.S. Urban Areas)
(Note: See page 2 for description of changes since the 2012 report)
Measures of
Individual Congestion
Yearly delay per auto commuter (hours)
Travel Time Index
Planning Time Index (Freeway only)
Wasted" fuel per auto commuter (gallons)
Congestion cost per auto commuter (2014 $)
The Nations Congestion Problem
Travel delay (billion hours)
Wasted fuel (billion gallons)
Truck congestion cost (billions of 2014 dollars)
Congestion cost (billions of 2014 dollars)
1982
2000
2010
2013
2014
18
1.09
-4
$400
37
1.19
-15
$810
40
1.20
-15
$930
42
1.21
-19
$950
42
1.22
2.41
19
$960
1.8
0.5
-$42
5.2
2.1
$114
6.4
2.5
-$149
6.8
3.1
-$156
6.9
3.1
$28
$160
Yearly delay per auto commuter The extra time spent during the year traveling at congested speeds rather than free-flow
speeds by private vehicle drivers and passengers who typically travel in the peak periods.
Travel Time Index (TTI) The ratio of travel time in the peak period to travel time at free-flow conditions. A Travel Time
Index of 1.30 indicates a 20-minute free-flow trip takes 26 minutes in the peak period.
Planning Time Index (PTI) The ratio of travel time on the worst day of the month to travel time in free-flow conditions.
Wasted fuel Extra fuel consumed during congested travel.
Congestion cost The yearly value of delay time and wasted fuel by all vehicles.
Truck congestion cost - The yearly value of operating time and wasted fuel for commercial trucks.
Exhibit 2. National Congestion Measures, 1982 to 2014

Year
Travel Time
Index
Delay Per
Commuter
(Hours)
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
1982
1.22
1.21
1.21
1.21
1.20
1.20
1.21
1.21
1.21
1.21
1.21
1.20
1.20
1.19
1.19
1.18
1.18
1.17
1.17
1.16
1.15
1.15
1.14
1.14
1.13
1.13
1.12
1.12
1.11
1.11
1.10
1.10
1.09
42
42
41
41
40
40
42
42
42
41
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
Total Delay
(Billion Hours)
Fuel Wasted
(Billion Gallons)
Total Cost
(Billions of
2014 Dollars)
6.9
6.8
6.7
6.6
6.4
6.3
6.6
6.6
6.4
6.3
6.1
5.9
5.6
5.3
5.2
4.9
4.7
4.5
4.2
4.0
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.7
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.1
2.0
1.8
3.1
3.1
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.8
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.5
$160
$156
$154
$152
$149
$147
$152
$154
$149
$143
$136
$128
$124
$119
$114
$106
$101
$97
$93
$87
$82
$77
$73
$69
$65
$62
$58
$55
$52
$51
$48
$45
$42
Notes:
See Exhibit 1 for explanation of measures.
For more congestion information and for congestion information on your city,
see Tables 1 to 3 and http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums.
Turning Congestion Data Into Insight

(And the New Data Providing a More Accurate View)
The 2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard is the 4th that TTI and INRIX (2) have prepared. The data behind the
2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard are hundreds of speed data points on almost every mile of major road in
urban America for almost every 15-minute period of the average day of the week. For the congestion
analyst, this means 900 million speeds on 1.3 million miles of U.S. streets and highways an awesome
amount of information. For the policy analyst and transportation planner, this means congestion
problems can be described in detail, and solutions can be targeted with much greater specificity and
accuracy.
Key aspects of the 2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard are summarized below.
Congestion estimates are presented for each of the 471 U.S. urban areas. Improvements in the
INRIX traffic speed data and the data provided by the states to the Federal Highway Administration
(3) means that for the first time the Urban Mobility Scorecard can provide an estimate of the
congestion effects on residents of every urban area.
Speeds collected by INRIX every 15 minutes from a variety of sources every day of the year on
almost every major road are used in the study. The data for all 96 15-minute periods of the day
makes it possible to track congestion problems for the midday, overnight and weekend time
periods. For more information about INRIX, go to www.inrix.com.
This data improvement created significant difference in congestion estimates compared with past
Reports/Scorecards more congestion overall, a higher percentage of congestion on streets and
different congestion estimates for many urban areas. As has been our practice, past measure values
were revised to provide our best estimate of congestion trends.
More detail is provided on truck travel and congestion. Estimates of truck volume during the day
were developed (in past reports, trucks were assumed to have the same patterns as cars travel).
This changed delay and fuel estimates in different ways for several cities.
The measure of the variation in travel time from day-to-day now uses a more representative tripbased process (4) rather than the old dataset that used individual road links. The Planning Time
Index (PTI) is based on the idea that travelers want to be on-time for an important trip 19 out of 20
times; so one would be late to work only one day per month (on-time for 19 out of 20 work days
each month). For example, a PTI value of 1.80 indicates that a traveler should allow 36 minutes to
make an important trip that takes 20 minutes in low traffic volumes. The new values are lower, and
closer to real-world experience.
Many of the slow speeds that were formerly considered too slow to be a valid observation are now
being retained in the INRIX dataset. Experience and increased travel speed sample sizes have
increased the confidence in the data.
Where speed estimates are required, the estimation process is benefitting from the increased
number of speeds in the dataset. The methodology is described on the mobility study website (5).
More information on the performance measures and data can be found at:
http://mobility.tamu.edu/methodology/
One Page of Congestion Problems

In the biggest regions and most congested corridors, traffic jams can occur at any hour, weekdays or
weekends. The problems that travelers and shippers face include extra travel time, extra cost from
wasted fuel and lost productivity and increasing unreliability where bad weather, roadwork, a
malfunctioning traffic signal, a local event or a small accident or stalled vehicle can result in major
delays. Some key measures are listed below. See data for your city at
http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/congestion_data.
Congestion costs are increasing. The congestion invoice for the cost of extra time and fuel in the 471
U.S. urban areas was (all values in constant 2014 dollars):
In 2014 $160 billion
In 2000 $114 billion
In 1982 $42 billion
Congestion wastes a massive amount of time, fuel and money. In 2014:
6.9 billion hours of extra time (more than the time it would take to drive to Pluto and back, if there
was a road).
3.1 billion gallons of wasted fuel (more than 90 minutes worth of flow in the Missouri River).
and if all that isnt bad enough, folks making important trips had to plan for nearly 2 times as
much travel time as in light traffic conditions in order to account for the effects of unexpected
crashes, bad weather, special events and other irregular congestion causes.
Congestion is also a type of tax
$160 billion of delay and fuel cost (the negative effect of uncertain or longer delivery times, missed
meetings, business relocations and other congestion-related effects are not included) (equivalent to
the lost productivity, clinic visit and medication costs for 53 million cases of poison ivy).
18 percent ($28 billion) of the delay cost was the effect of congestion on truck operations; this does
not include any value for the goods being transported in the trucks.
The cost to the average auto commuter was $960 in 2014 compared to an inflation-adjusted $400 in
1982.
Congestion affects people who travel during the peak period. The average auto commuter:
Spent an extra 42 hours traveling in 2014 up from 18 hours in 1982.
Wasted 19 gallons of fuel in 2014 a weeks worth of fuel for the average U.S. driver up from 4
gallons in 1982.
In areas with over one million persons, 2014 auto commuters experienced:
o an average of 63 hours of extra travel time
o a road network that was congested for 6 hours of the average weekday
o had a congestion tax of $1,440
Congestion is also a problem at other hours.
Approximately 41 percent of total delay occurs in the midday and overnight (outside of the peak
hours) times of day when travelers and shippers expect free-flow travel.
Many manufacturing processes depend on a free-flow trip for efficient production and congested
networks interfere with those operations.
More Detail About Congestion Problems

Congestion, by every measure, has increased substantially over the 33 years covered in this report. And
almost every area has recovered from the economic recession; almost all regions have worse
congestion than before the 2008 crash. Traffic problems as measured by per-commuter measures are
about the same as a decade ago, but because there are so many more commuters, and more congestion
during off-peak hours, total delay has increased by almost one billion hours. The total congestion cost
has also risen with more wasted hours, greater fuel consumption and more trucks stuck in stop-and-go
traffic.
Immediate solutions and long-term plans are needed to reduce undesirable congestion. The recession
reduced construction costs, or at least slowed their growth. Urban areas and states can still take
advantage of this situation but each area must craft a set of programs, policies and projects that are
supported by their communities. This mix will be different in every city, but all of them can be informed
by data and trend information.
Congestion is worse in areas of every size it is not just a big city problem. The growing delays also hit
residents of smaller cities (Exhibit 3). Big towns and small cities have congestion problems every
economy is different and smaller regions often count on good mobility as a quality-of-life aspect that
allows them to compete with larger, more economically diverse regions. As the national economy
improves, it is important to develop the consensus on action steps -- major projects, programs and
funding efforts take 10 to 15 years to develop.
Exhibit 3. Congestion Growth Trend Hours of Delay per Auto Commuter
Small = less than 500,000

Medium = 500,000 to 1 million
Large = 1 million to 3 million

Very Large = more than 3 million
Congestion Patterns
Congestion builds through the week from Monday to Friday. The two weekend days have less
delay than any weekday (Exhibit 4).
Congestion is worse in the evening, but it can be a problem during any daylight hour (Exhibit 5).
Midday hours comprise a significant share of the congestion problem.
Exhibit 4. Percent of Delay for Each Day
Exhibit 5. Percent of Delay for Hours of Day

12%
20%
10%
16%
8%
12%
6%
8%
4%
4%
2%
0%
0%
Mon Tue Wed Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun
Mid
6A
9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Noon
6P
Congestion on Freeways and Streets
Mid
Streets have more delay than freeways, but there are also many more miles of streets (Exhibit 6).
Approximately 40 percent of delay occurs in off-peak hours.
Freeway delay is much less of the problem in areas under 1 million population.
Exhibit 6. Percent of Delay for Road Types

Peak
Freeways
10%
Off Peak
Streets
29%
Peak
Freeways
29%
Peak
Streets
32%
Urban Areas Over

1M Population
Off Peak
Streets
41%
Off Peak
Freeways
10%
Peak
Streets
43%
Urban Areas Under

1M Population
Off Peak
Freeways
6%
Rush Hour Congestion
Severe and extreme congestion levels affected only 1 in 9 trips in 1982, but 1 in 4 trips in 2014.
The most congested sections of road account for 80% of peak period delays, but only have 26% of
the travel (Exhibit 7).
Exhibit 7. Peak Period Congestion in 2014

but those worst trips
experience 80% of the extra
travel time.
About 26% of trips are in

severe congestion..
Moderate
7%
Light
2%
Extreme
14%
Uncongested
18%
Severe
12%
Heavy
14%
Extreme
63%
Light
22%
Heavy
11%
Severe
17%
Moderate
20%
Truck Congestion
Trucks account for 18 percent of the urban congestion invoice although they only represent 7
percent of urban travel (Exhibit 9).
The costs in Exhibit 9 do not include the extra costs borne by private companies who build
additional distribution centers, buy more trucks and build more satellite office centers to allow them
to overcome the problems caused by a congested and inefficient transportation network.
Exhibit 9. 2014 Congestion Cost for Urban Passenger and Freight Vehicles
Travel by Vehicle Type
Congestion Cost by Vehicle Type

Truck
18%
Truck
7%
Passenger
Vehicle
93%
Passenger
Vehicle
82%
Since the Congestion Decline During the Recession .
American motorists are enduring about 5 percent more delay than the pre-recession peak in 2007.
(Exhibit 2)
While this is associated with a good thing -- economic and population growth in our major metro
areas it is also clear this growth is outpacing the investment in infrastructure and programs to
address the increased demand on the network.
Cities with employment and population growth faster than the national averages also experienced
some of the biggest increases in traffic congestion.
Cities that showed little to no change in traffic congestion were also those where employment and
population growth was slower than the national average
53 of the 101 urban areas saw the total urban area delay exceed the pre-recession levels within 3
years; an immediate snapback was seen in more than one-quarter of the studied regions.
22 areas still have lower total annual delay than in 2007/8. (Exhibit 8)
In contrast to total delay, average auto commuter delay is still less than pre-recession levels in 60
areas
16 areas have higher hours per commuter exceeded the 2007/8 values in only 16 areas. (Exhibit 8)
Exhibit 8. Number of Years Before Congestion Returned to Pre-Recession Levels

Total Urban Area Delay
Delay Per Urban Auto Commuter
(1)
6 or 7
Years
Not Yet
(28 Areas)
Recovered
Zero or 1
(22 Areas)
Year
(25)
4 or 5
Years
(25)
2 or 3
Years
Not Yet
Recovered
(60 Urban Areas)
(10)
2 or 3
Years
(16)
4 or 5 Years
(6 Areas)
Zero or 1
Year
(9)
6 or 7
Years
The Trouble With Planning Your Trip

Weve all made urgent tripscatching an airplane, getting to a medical appointment, or picking up a
child at daycare on time. We know we need to leave a little early to make sure we are not late for these
important trips, and we understand that these trips will take longer during the rush hour. The need to
add extra time isnt just a rush hour consideration. Trips during the off-peak can also take longer than
expected. If we have to catch an airplane at 1 p.m., we might still be inclined to add a little extra time,
and the data indicate that our intuition is correct.
Exhibit 10 illustrates this problem. Say your typical trip takes 20 minutes when there are few other cars
on the road. That is represented by the green bar across the morning, midday, and evening. Your trip
usually takes longer, on average, whether that trip is in the morning, midday, or evening. This average
trip time is shown in the solid yellow bar in Exhibit 10 in 2014 the average big city auto commute was
25 minutes in the morning and 27 minutes in the evening peak.
Now, if you have to make a very important trip during any of these time periods there is additional
planning time you must allow to reliably arrive on-time. And, as shown in Exhibit 10 (red bar), it isnt
just a rush hour problem it can happen any time of the day and amounts to an extra 29 minutes in
the morning, 35 minutes in the evening and even 14 minutes for your 20-minute trip in the midday. The
news isnt much better for those planning trips in areas with fewer than 1 million people 14 and 18
minutes longer in the morning and evening peaks. Data for individual urban areas is presented in Table 3
(in the back of the report).
Exhibit 10. Extra Time to Make Important Trips
Areas with More Than

1 Million Population
Areas with Less Than

1 Million Population
10
The Future of Congestion

Before the economic recession, congestion was increasing at between 2 and 4 percent every year
which meant that extra travel time for the average commuter increased slightly less than 1 hour every
year. The economic recession set back that trend a few years, but the trend in the last few years
indicates congestion is rising again. Congestion is the result of an imbalance between travel demand
and the supply of transportation capacity whether that is freeway lanes, bus seats or rail cars. As the
number of residents or jobs goes up in an improving economy, or the miles or trips that those people
make increases, the road and transit systems also need to, in some combination, either expand or
operate more efficiently. As the rising congestion levels in this report demonstrate, however, this is an
infrequent occurrence. Travelers are not only paying the price for this inadequate response, but traffic
congestion can also become a drain on further economic growth.
As one estimate of congestion in the near future, this report uses the expected population growth and
congestion trends from the period of sustained economic growth between 2000 and 2005 to get an idea
of what the next five years might hold. The basic input and analysis features:
The combined role of the government and private sector will yield approximately the same rate of
transportation system expansion (both roadway and public transportation). The analysis assumes
that policies and funding levels will remain about the same.
The growth in usage of any of the alternatives (biking, walking, work or shop at home) will continue
at the same rate.
The period before the economic recession (from 2000 to 2005) was used as the indicator of the
effect of growth. These years had generally steady economic growth in most U.S. urban regions;
these years are assumed to be the best indicator of the future level of investment in solutions and
the resulting increase in congestion for each urban area.
The congestion estimate for any single region will be affected by the funding, project selections and
operational strategies; the simplified estimation procedure used in this report did not capture these
variations. Using this simplified approach the following offers an idea of the national congestion
problem in 2020.
The national congestion cost will grow from $160 billion to $192 billion in 2020 (in 2014 dollars).
Delay will grow to 8.3 billion hours in 2020.
Wasted fuel will increase to 3.8 billion gallons in 2020.
The average commuters congestion cost will grow to $1,100 in 2020 (in 2014 dollars).
The average commuter will waste 47 hours and 21 gallons in 2020.
11
Congestion Relief An Overview of the Strategies

We recommend a balanced and diversified approach to reduce congestion one that focuses on more
of everything. It is clear that our current investment levels have not kept pace with the problems. Most
urban regions have big problems now more congestion, poorer pavement and bridge conditions and
less public transportation service than they would like.
There will be a different mix of solutions in metro regions, cities, neighborhoods, job centers and
shopping areas. Some areas might be more amenable to construction solutions, other areas might use
more technology to promote and facilitate travel options, operational improvements, or land use
redevelopment. In all cases, the solutions need to work together to provide an interconnected network
of smart transportation services as well as improve the quality-of-life.
Better data can play a valuable role in all of the analyses. Advancements in volume collection, travel
speed data and origin to destination travel paths for people and freight allow transportation agencies at
all government levels and the private sector to better identify existing chokepoints, possible alternatives
and growth patterns. The solution begins with better understanding of the challenges, problems,
possibilities and opportunities where, when, how and how often mobility problems occur and moves
into similar questions about solutions where, when, how can mobility be improved. These data will
allow travelers to capitalize on new transportation services, identify novel programs, have better travel
time reliability and improve their access to information.
More information on the possible solutions, places they have been implemented and the effects
estimated in this report can be found on the website http://mobility.tamu.edu/solutions None of these
ideas are the whole mobility solution, but they can all play a role.
Get as much service as possible from what we have Many low-cost improvements have broad
public support and can be rapidly deployed. These operations programs require innovation, new
monitoring technologies and staffing plans, constant attention and adjustment, but they pay
dividends in faster, safer and more reliable travel. Rapidly removing crashed vehicles, timing the
traffic signals so that more vehicles see green lights, and improving road and intersection designs
are relatively simple actions. More complex changes such as traffic signals that rapidly adapt to
different traffic patterns, systems that smooth traffic flow and reduce traffic collisions and
communication technologies that assist travelers (in all modes) and the transportation network in
achieving goals are also a part of the get the best bang for the buck approach.
Add capacity in critical corridors Handling more freight or person travel on freeways, streets, rail
lines, buses or intermodal facilities often requires more. Important corridors or growing regions
can benefit from more street and highway lanes, new or expanded public transportation facilities,
and larger bus and rail fleets. Some of the more will also be in the form of advancements in
connected and autonomous vehicles cars, trucks, buses and trains that communicate with each
other and with the transportation network that will reduce crashes and congestion.
Provide choices This might involve different travel routes, travel modes or lanes that involve a toll
for high-speed and reliable service. These options allow travelers and shippers to customize their
travel plans. There is much more transportation information available on websites, smartphones
and apps, radio, TV and in their car or at their transit stop; the information involves displays of
existing travel times, locations of roadwork or crashes, transit ridership and arrival information and
a variety of trip planner resources. They allow travelers to make real-time decisions about when to
12
depart on a trip, what route or mode to take, whether they are interested in paying a toll in order to
guarantee an arrival time or perhaps just sleep in for a while and telecommute on a particularly bad
day. In the past, this information was more difficult to find, tough to understand or was not
updated very frequently. Todays commuters have much better information, delivered when and
where its needed in a format they can use to make decisions
Change the usage patterns There are solutions that involve changes in the way employers and
travelers conduct business to avoid traveling in the traditional rush hours. Flexible work hours,
internet connections or phones allow employees to choose work schedules that meet family needs
and the needs of their jobs. These are not typically agency-led or agency-directed strategies they
are workers and managers getting together to identify virtuous combinations of work hours,
commute modes, office space arrangements and electronic communication mechanisms.
Companies have seen productivity increase when workers are able to adjust their hours and
commute trips to meet family or other obligations. Those companies also save on parking space and
office requirements and see less staff turnover and, therefore, lower recruiting and training costs.
Diversify the development patterns These typically involve denser developments with a mix of
jobs, shops and homes, so that more people can walk, bike or take transit to more, and closer,
destinations. Sustaining the quality-of-life and gaining economic development without the typical
increment of congestion in each of these sub-regions appears to be part, but not all, of the mobility
solution. Analytical advancements in fields of transportation, land development, education and
other information sources mean that home purchasers have much more information about their
commute options and the expectations they should have. A range of home types, locations and
prices when matched with more information about, for example, historic travel times, elementary
and secondary education quality, entertainment and cultural sites provides the type of information
that consumers want.
Realistic expectations are also part of the solution. Large urban areas will be congested. Some
locations near key activity centers in smaller urban areas will also be congested. Identifying
solutions and funding sources that meet a variety of community goals is challenging enough without
attempting to eliminate congestion in all locations at all times. Congestion does not have to be an
all-day event, and in many cases improving travel time awareness and predictability can be a
positive first step towards improving urban mobility.
Case studies, analytical methods and data are available to support development of these strategies and
monitor the effectiveness of deployments. There are also many good state and regional mobility reports
that provide ideas for communicating the findings of the data analysis.
13
Analysis Using the Best Congestion Data

& Analysis Methodologies
The base data for the 2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard came from INRIX, the U.S. Department of
Transportation and the states (2, 3). Several analytical processes were used to develop the final
measures, but the biggest improvement in the last two decades is provided by the INRIX data. The
speed data covering most travel on most major roads in U.S. urban regions eliminates the difficult
process of estimating speeds and dramatically improves the accuracy and level of understanding about
the congestion problems facing US travelers.
The methodology is described in a technical report (5) that is posted on the mobility report website:
http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/methodology/.
The INRIX traffic speeds are collected from a variety of sources and compiled in their Historical
Profile database. Commercial vehicles, smart phones and connected cars with location devices feed
time and location data points to INRIX.
The proprietary process filters inappropriate data (e.g., pedestrians walking next to a street) and
compiles a dataset of average speeds for each road segment. TTI was provided a dataset of 15minute average speeds for each link of major roadway covered in the Historical Profile database
(approximately 1.3 million miles in 2014).
Traffic volume estimates were developed with a set of procedures developed from computer
models and studies of real-world travel time and volume data. The congestion methodology uses
daily traffic volume converted to 15-minute volumes using a national traffic count dataset (6).
The 15-minute INRIX speeds were matched to the 15-minute volume estimates for each road
section on the FHWA maps.
An estimation procedure was also developed for the sections of road that did not have INRIX data.
As described in the methodology website, the road sections were ranked according to volume per
lane and then matched with a similar list of sections with INRIX and volume per lane data (as
developed from the FHWA dataset) (5).
14
National Performance Measurement

What Gets Measured, Gets Done
Many of us have heard this saying, and it is very appropriate when discussing transportation system
performance measurement. Performance measurement at the national level is gaining momentum.
Many state and local transportation agencies are implementing performance measurement activities to
operate their systems as efficiently as possible with limited resources.
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) was signed into law on July 6, 2012 to
fund surface transportation. Among other aspects, MAP-21 establishes performance-based planning and
programming to improve transportation decision-making and increase the accountability and
transparency of the Federal highway funding program (7).
As part of the transition to a performance and outcome-based Federal highway funding program, MAP21 establishes national performance goals in the following areas (7):
Safety
Infrastructure condition
Congestion reduction
System reliability
Freight movement and economic vitality
Environmental sustainability
Reduced project delivery delays
MAP-21 requirements provide the opportunity to improve agency operations. While transportation
professionals calculate required MAP-21 performance measures, there is an opportunity to also develop
processes and measures to better understand their systems. The requirements of MAP-21 are specified
through a Rulemaking process. At the time of this writing, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
for system performance measures (congestion, reliability) has not been released by the United States
Department of Transportation (USDOT).
While the specific requirements of MAP-21 related to system performance measures are not yet known,
the data, measures, and methods in the Urban Mobility Scorecard provide transportation professionals
with a 33-year trend of foundational knowledge to inform performance measurement and target setting
at the urban area level. The measures and techniques have stood the test of time to communicate
mobility conditions and potential solutions.
Dont Let Perfect be the Enemy of Good
Occasionally there is reluctance at transportation agencies to dive in and begin performance
measurement activities because there is a concern that the data or methods are just not good enough.
Over the years, the Urban Mobility Report (and now the Scorecard) has taken advantage of data
improvements and associated changes in analysis methods and the use of more powerful
computational methods (for example, geographic information systems). Such adaptations are typical
when conducting on-going performance reporting. As the successful 33-year data trend of UMR/UMS
suggests, changes can be made as improvements become available. The key is to get started!
15
16
Concluding Thoughts
The national economy has improved since the last Urban Mobility Scorecard, and unfortunately
congestion has gotten worse. This has been the case in the past, and it appears that the economycongestion linkage is as dependable as gravity. Some analysts had touted the decline in driving per
capita and dip in congestion levels as a sign that traffic congestion would, in essence, fix itself. That is
not happening.
The other seemingly dependable trend not enough of any solution being deployed also appears to
be holding in most growing regions. That is really the lesson from this series of reports. The mix of
solutions that are used is relatively less important than the amount of solution being implemented. All
of the potential congestion-reducing strategies should be considered, and there is a role and location for
most of the strategies.
Getting more productivity out of the existing road and public transportation systems is vital to
reducing congestion and improving travel time reliability.
Businesses and employees can use a variety of strategies to modify their work schedules,
traveling times and travel modes to avoid the peak periods, use less vehicle travel and increase
the amount of electronic travel.
In growth corridors, there also may be a role for additional capacity to move people and freight
more rapidly and reliably.
Some areas are seeing renewed interest in higher density living in neighborhoods with a mix of
residential, office, shopping and other developments. These places can promote shorter trips
that are more amenable to walking, cycling or public transportation modes.
The 2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard points to national measures of the congestion problem for the 471
urban areas in 2014:
$160 billion of wasted time and fuel
Including $28 billion of extra truck operating time and fuel
An extra 6.9 billion hours of travel and 3.1 billion gallons of fuel consumed
The average urban commuter in 2014:
spent an extra 42 hours of travel time on roads than if the travel was done in low-volume
conditions
used 19 extra gallons of fuel
which amounted to an average value of $960 per commuter
Traffic congestion has grown since the low point in 2009 during the economic recession. An additional
600 million hours and 700 million gallons of fuel were consumed in 2014 than in 2009. Congestion, in
terms of average extra hours and gallons of fuel consumed by the average commuter, has not returned
to pre-recession levels in 60 of the 101 urban areas that were intensively studied. But there have been
increases in the extra hours of travel time and gallons those commuters suffer showing that the
economic recession has not been a permanent cure for traffic congestion problems.
States and cities have been addressing the congestion problems they face with a variety of strategies
and more detailed data analysis. Some of the solution lies in identifying congestion that is undesirable
that which significantly diminishes the quality of life and economic productivity and some lies in using
the smart data systems and range of technologies, projects and programs to achieve results and
communicate the effects to assure the public that their project dollars are being spent wisely.
17
National Congestion Tables

Urban Area
Very Large Average (15 areas)
Washington DC-VA-MD
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim CA
San Francisco-Oakland CA
New York-Newark NY-NJ-CT
Boston MA-NH-RI
Seattle WA
Chicago IL-IN
Houston TX
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington TX
Atlanta GA
Detroit MI
Miami FL
Phoenix-Mesa AZ
Philadelphia PA-NJ-DE-MD
San Diego CA
Table 1. What Congestion Means to You, 2014

Yearly Delay per Auto
Excess Fuel per Auto
Commuter
Travel Time Index
Commuter
Hours
Rank
Value
Rank
Gallons
Rank
63
1.32
27
82
1
1.34
8
35
1
80
2
1.43
1
25
11
78
3
1.41
2
33
3
74
4
1.34
8
35
1
64
6
1.29
17
30
4
63
7
1.38
3
28
8
61
8
1.31
14
29
5
61
8
1.33
10
29
5
53
11
1.27
19
22
23
52
12
1.24
25
20
44
52
12
1.24
25
25
11
52
12
1.29
17
24
15
51
17
1.27
19
25
11
48
22
1.24
25
23
18
42
43
1.24
25
11
92
Congestion Cost per

Auto Commuter
Dollars
Rank
1,433
1,834
1
1,711
3
1,675
4
1,739
2
1,388
9
1,491
5
1,445
7
1,490
6
1,185
14
1,130
22
1,183
15
1,169
17
1,201
13
1,112
26
887
61
Very Large Urban Areasover 3 million population.

Medium Urban Areasover 500,000 and less than 1 million population.
Large Urban Areasover 1 million and less than 3 million population.
Small Urban Areasless than 500,000 population.
Yearly Delay per Auto CommuterExtra travel time during the year divided by the number of people who commute in private vehicles in the urban area.
Travel Time IndexThe ratio of travel time in the peak period to the travel time at free-flow conditions. A value of 1.30 indicates a 20-minute free-flow trip takes 26 minutes in the
peak period.
Excess Fuel ConsumedIncreased fuel consumption due to travel in congested conditions rather than free-flow conditions.
Congestion CostValue of travel time delay (estimated at $17.67 per hour of person travel and $94.04 per hour of truck time) and excess fuel consumption (estimated using state
average cost per gallon for gasoline and diesel).
Note: Please do not place too much emphasis on small differences in the rankings. There may be little difference in congestion between areas ranked (for example) 6th and 12th. The
actual measure values should also be examined. The best congestion comparisons are made between similar urban areas.
18
Urban Area
Large Average (31 areas)
San Jose CA
Riverside-San Bernardino CA
Austin TX
Portland OR-WA
Denver-Aurora CO
Oklahoma City OK
Baltimore MD
Minneapolis-St. Paul MN
Las Vegas-Henderson NV
Orlando FL
Nashville-Davidson TN
Virginia Beach VA
San Antonio TX
Charlotte NC-SC
Indianapolis IN
Louisville-Jefferson County KY-IN
Memphis TN-MS-AR
Providence RI-MA
Sacramento CA
St. Louis MO-IL
San Juan PR
Cincinnati OH-KY-IN
Columbus OH
Tampa-St. Petersburg FL
Kansas City MO-KS
Pittsburgh PA
Cleveland OH
Jacksonville FL
Milwaukee WI
Salt Lake City-West Valley City UT
Richmond VA
Table 1. What Congestion Means to You, 2014, Continued

Commuter
Travel Time Index
Commuter
Hours
Rank
Value
Rank
Gallons
Rank
45
1.23
21
67
5
1.38
3
28
8
59
10
1.33
10
18
62
52
12
1.33
10
22
23
52
12
1.35
7
29
5
49
19
1.30
16
24
15
49
19
1.19
42
23
18
47
23
1.26
21
21
32
47
23
1.26
21
18
62
46
27
1.26
21
21
32
46
27
1.21
34
21
32
45
29
1.21
34
22
23
45
29
1.19
42
19
51
44
33
1.25
24
20
44
43
35
1.23
29
17
70
43
35
1.18
46
23
18
43
35
1.20
37
22
23
43
35
1.19
42
21
32
43
35
1.20
37
21
32
43
35
1.23
29
19
51
43
35
1.16
65
21
32
43
35
1.31
14
24
15
41
45
1.18
46
21
32
41
45
1.18
46
20
44
41
45
1.21
34
18
62
39
51
1.15
76
18
62
39
51
1.19
42
21
32
38
55
1.15
76
22
23
38
55
1.18
46
15
78
38
55
1.17
54
22
23
37
66
1.18
46
22
23
34
77
1.13
88
14
84
Congestion Cost per

Auto Commuter
Dollars
Rank
$1,045
1,422
8
1,316
10
1,159
20
1,273
11
1,101
28
1,110
27
1,115
25
1,035
36
984
42
1,044
34
1,168
18
953
46
1,002
38
963
44
1,060
30
1,048
32
1,080
29
951
47
958
45
1,020
37
1,150
21
989
40
933
49
907
57
933
49
889
59
887
61
842
72
987
41
1,059
31
729
82
19

peak period.
Urban Area
Medium Average (33 areas)
Honolulu HI
Bridgeport-Stamford CT-NY
Baton Rouge LA
Tucson AZ
Hartford CT
New Orleans LA
Tulsa OK
Albany NY
Charleston-North Charleston SC
Buffalo NY
New Haven CT
Grand Rapids MI
Rochester NY
Columbia SC
Springfield MA-CT
Toledo OH-MI
Albuquerque NM
Colorado Springs CO
Knoxville TN
Wichita KS
Birmingham AL
Raleigh NC
El Paso TX-NM
Omaha NE-IA
Allentown PA-NJ
Cape Coral FL
McAllen TX
Akron OH
Sarasota-Bradenton FL
Dayton OH
Fresno CA
Provo-Orem UT
Bakersfield CA

Commuter
Travel Time Index
Commuter
Hours
Rank
Value
Rank
Gallons
Rank
37
1.18
18
50
18
1.37
5
26
10
49
19
1.36
6
22
23
47
23
1.22
32
25
11
47
23
1.22
32
23
18
45
29
1.20
37
21
32
45
29
1.32
13
22
23
44
33
1.17
54
20
44
42
43
1.17
54
21
32
41
45
1.23
29
20
44
40
49
1.17
54
21
32
40
49
1.16
65
19
51
39
51
1.17
54
19
51
39
51
1.16
65
20
44
38
55
1.15
76
19
51
38
55
1.14
81
19
51
38
55
1.18
46
20
44
36
70
1.16
65
19
51
35
72
1.16
65
17
70
35
72
1.14
81
17
70
35
72
1.17
54
18
62
34
77
1.14
81
16
75
34
77
1.17
54
13
86
33
81
1.16
65
16
75
32
83
1.16
65
17
70
30
86
1.17
54
15
78
30
86
1.17
54
13
86
30
86
1.15
76
13
86
27
89
1.12
91
15
78
26
90
1.16
65
12
91
25
91
1.12
91
13
86
23
92
1.11
97
11
92
21
94
1.12
91
15
78
19
96
1.12
91
9
96
Congestion Cost per

Auto Commuter
Dollars
Rank
$870
1,125
24
1,174
16
1,262
12
1,128
23
1,038
35
1,161
19
984
42
991
39
1,047
33
918
53
932
51
854
68
889
59
951
47
831
75
920
52
886
63
772
78
849
70
837
73
891
58
734
81
760
79
707
84
694
87
669
88
649
89
634
90
589
92
590
91
495
96
708
83
512
94
20
Travel Time IndexA value of 1.30 indicates a 20-minute free-flow trip takes 26 minutes in the peak period.
Congestion CostValue of travel time delay and excess fuel consumption (estimated using state average cost per gallon for gasoline and diesel).
Urban Area
Small Average (22 areas)
Jackson MS
Little Rock AR
Pensacola FL-AL
Spokane WA
Worcester MA-CT
Anchorage AK
Boise City ID
Poughkeepsie-Newburgh NY-NJ
Madison WI
Boulder CO
Salem OR
Beaumont TX
Eugene OR
Greensboro NC
Corpus Christi TX
Oxnard CA
Brownsville TX
Winston-Salem NC
Laredo TX
Stockton CA
Lancaster-Palmdale CA
Indio-Cathedral City CA
101 Area Average
Remaining Areas Average
All 471 Area Average

Commuter
Travel Time Index
Commuter
Hours
Rank
Value
Rank
Gallons
Rank
30
1.14
14
38
55
1.13
88
15
78
38
55
1.14
81
13
86
38
55
1.17
54
18
62
38
55
1.17
54
23
18
38
55
1.12
91
18
62
37
66
1.20
37
19
51
37
66
1.16
65
18
62
37
66
1.12
91
17
70
36
70
1.18
46
19
51
35
72
1.20
37
19
51
35
72
1.16
65
21
32
34
77
1.15
76
15
78
33
81
1.18
46
19
51
32
83
1.10
99
14
84
31
85
1.13
88
16
75
23
92
1.14
81
8
97
21
94
1.14
81
11
92
19
96
1.11
97
7
98
18
98
1.16
65
10
95
18
98
1.14
81
7
98
17
100
1.10
99
5
100
6
101
1.05
101
2
101
52
1.26
23
16
1.09
7
42
1.22
19
Congestion Cost per

Auto Commuter
Dollars
Rank
$705
878
64
853
69
849
70
911
55
865
67
913
54
833
74
867
66
911
55
752
80
876
65
800
77
804
76
703
85
697
86
494
97
494
97
415
99
496
95
516
93
349
100
149
101
$1,190
$370
$960

peak period.
21
Urban Area
Chicago IL-IN
Washington DC-VA-MD
Houston TX
Miami FL
Phoenix-Mesa AZ
Detroit MI
Boston MA-NH-RI
Atlanta GA
Seattle WA
San Diego CA
Table 2. What Congestion Means to Your Town, 2014

Truck Congestion
Travel Delay
Excess Fuel Consumed
Cost
(1,000 Hours)
Rank (1,000 Gallons)
Rank
($ million)
Rank
231,970
99,490
$885
628,241
1
296,701
1
2,779
1
622,509
2
195,491
2
1,721
2
302,609
3
147,031
3
1,482
3
204,375
4
88,130
6
710
6
203,173
5
94,300
4
1,118
4
195,946
6
90,320
5
736
5
186,535
7
79,392
7
702
7
157,183
8
77,456
8
683
9
155,730
9
75,938
9
692
8
155,358
10
73,645
10
567
11
153,994
11
71,602
11
426
15
148,666
12
57,113
14
434
13
146,013
13
62,320
12
360
18
139,842
14
62,136
13
645
10
79,412
20
20,742
36
192
35
Total Congestion
Cost
($ million)
Rank
$5,260
14,712
1
13,318
2
7,222
3
4,560
5
4,924
4
4,444
6
4,202
7
3,669
8
3,641
9
3,514
10
3,363
11
3,214
13
3,143
14
3,294
12
1,658
21

Travel DelayExtra travel time during the year.
Excess Fuel ConsumedValue of increased fuel consumption due to travel in congested conditions rather than free-flow conditions (using state average cost per gallon).
Truck Congestion CostValue of increased travel time and other operating costs of large trucks (estimated at $94.04 per hour of truck time) and the extra diesel consumed (using
state average cost per gallon).
Congestion CostValue of delay and fuel cost (estimated at $17.67 per hour of person travel, $94.04 per hour of truck time and state average fuel cost).
Note:Please do not place too much emphasis on small differences in the rankings. There may be little difference in congestion between areas ranked (for example) 6th and 12th. The
22
Urban Area
San Jose CA
Denver-Aurora CO
Baltimore MD
Portland OR-WA
St. Louis MO-IL
San Antonio TX
San Juan PR
Sacramento CA
Orlando FL
Austin TX
Cincinnati OH-KY-IN
Virginia Beach VA
Indianapolis IN
Oklahoma City OK
Kansas City MO-KS
Cleveland OH
Pittsburgh PA
Columbus OH
Memphis TN-MS-AR
Providence RI-MA
Milwaukee WI
Charlotte NC-SC
Jacksonville FL
Richmond VA
Table 2. What Congestion Means to Your Town, 2014, Continued

Truck Congestion
Travel Delay
Cost
(1,000 Hours) Rank
(1,000 Gallons) Rank ($ million)
Rank
55,390
25,690
$235
104,559
15
43,972
16
240
28
99,710
16
38,542
19
327
20
99,058
17
30,732
23
361
17
91,479
18
44,922
15
319
21
87,620
19
38,661
18
427
14
72,341
21
39,611
17
375
16
71,628
22
31,654
22
237
30
69,350
23
32,991
21
328
19
64,328
24
28,809
25
251
27
63,693
25
30,001
24
158
45
60,301
26
33,418
20
437
12
60,220
27
26,289
26
189
36
52,723
28
23,938
31
212
33
51,116
29
21,654
33
182
39
48,485
30
25,086
28
238
29
48,274
31
20,085
37
112
52
46,435
32
25,066
29
259
26
45,652
33
21,027
35
166
43
45,570
34
21,349
34
226
32
45,051
35
25,547
27
182
39
44,758
36
24,107
30
171
42
40,025
37
19,870
38
162
44
38,977
39
19,093
39
285
22
37,824
40
18,440
42
229
31
37,809
41
18,853
41
121
49
37,659
42
21,957
32
266
25
35,622
45
17,841
43
186
38
34,153
46
13,760
50
131
47
29,680
48
12,063
53
101
57
26,925
51
16,304
46
267
24
26,104
53
10,802
55
68
69
Total Congestion
Cost
($ million)
Rank
$1,280
2,230
15
2,196
17
2,201
16
2,061
19
2,075
18
1,763
20
1,589
24
1,637
22
1,462
25
1,375
26
1,605
23
1,334
27
1,207
28
1,140
31
1,159
29
1,020
36
1,142
30
1,030
34
1,085
32
1,046
33
1,030
34
921
41
1,013
38
939
40
846
45
984
39
860
43
770
47
659
49
779
46
558
54
23

Urban Area
New Orleans LA
Tucson AZ
Tulsa OK
Hartford CT
Honolulu HI
Buffalo NY
Baton Rouge LA
Raleigh NC
Grand Rapids MI
Rochester NY
Albuquerque NM
Albany NY
Birmingham AL
El Paso TX-NM
Springfield MA-CT
Omaha NE-IA
Allentown PA-NJ
Wichita KS
New Haven CT
Columbia SC
McAllen TX
Colorado Springs CO
Toledo OH-MI
Knoxville TN
Dayton OH
Cape Coral FL
Akron OH
Fresno CA
Provo-Orem UT
Bakersfield CA

Truck Congestion
Travel Delay
Cost
(1,000 Hours) Rank
Rank
20,000
9,815
$94
39,159
38
18,895
40
281
23
37,119
43
16,586
45
194
34
35,993
44
17,477
44
176
41
30,341
47
14,128
47
107
54
28,296
49
13,406
51
115
50
27,672
50
14,118
48
74
63
26,851
52
14,053
49
103
56
23,163
54
12,104
52
189
36
23,128
55
9,159
62
71
66
21,536
56
10,552
56
58
74
20,582
57
10,550
57
73
64
20,452
58
10,961
54
112
52
20,409
59
10,164
58
88
58
19,385
60
9,105
63
139
46
19,127
61
9,360
60
77
62
18,431
62
9,335
61
54
77
18,422
63
9,024
64
126
48
18,224
64
9,535
59
57
75
17,114
65
8,743
65
66
70
16,860
66
8,594
66
88
58
16,430
67
7,949
69
69
67
16,315
68
8,018
68
104
55
16,226
69
7,336
73
49
83
16,058
70
7,700
71
50
81
15,905
71
8,451
67
79
61
14,946
72
7,180
74
87
60
14,604
74
7,434
72
69
67
14,053
75
6,574
76
46
84
12,959
78
5,637
83
44
85
12,283
81
6,586
75
50
81
11,823
83
5,682
80
23
95
8,178
86
5,677
81
115
50
8,001
89
3,743
90
65
71
Total Congestion
Cost
($ million)
Rank
$475
1,014
37
898
42
856
44
682
48
656
50
616
53
620
52
623
51
504
55
470
59
469
61
501
56
479
58
501
56
439
62
408
64
470
59
407
65
393
67
407
65
384
68
409
63
355
72
356
71
381
69
367
70
346
73
312
75
288
79
284
80
251
85
270
83
215
87
24

Urban Area
Little Rock AR
Worcester MA-CT
Spokane WA
Jackson MS
Boise City ID
Madison WI
Pensacola FL-AL
Beaumont TX
Corpus Christi TX
Greensboro NC
Anchorage AK
Salem OR
Eugene OR
Oxnard CA
Winston-Salem NC
Stockton CA
Boulder CO
Laredo TX
Brownsville TX
101 Area Total
101 Area Average
Remaining Area Total
Remaining Area Average
All 471 Area Total

Truck Congestion
Travel Delay
Cost
(1,000 Hours) Rank
Rank
8,170
3,850
36
14,799
73
5,262
84
61
72
13,143
76
6,432
77
52
80
13,004
77
7,928
70
59
73
12,843
79
5,723
79
55
76
12,287
80
4,897
86
53
78
11,963
82
5,673
82
40
87
11,159
84
5,773
78
72
65
11,017
85
5,120
85
38
89
8,028
87
3,629
92
40
87
8,012
88
4,110
88
26
94
7,887
90
3,534
93
27
93
7,371
91
3,847
89
38
89
6,948
92
4,254
87
41
86
6,354
93
3,728
91
32
92
6,282
94
2,241
95
16
97
6,111
95
2,400
94
21
96
5,115
96
2,102
98
53
78
4,181
97
1,228
100
10
99
4,080
98
2,204
96
10
99
3,919
99
2,130
97
34
91
3,511
100
1,866
99
14
98
1,685
101
660
101
9
101
6,036,500
2,697,300
24,360
59,800
26,700
240
906,200
424,200
4,040
2,400
1,140
11
6,942,700
3,121,500
28,400
14,710
6,610
60
Total Congestion
Cost
($ million)
Rank
190
336
74
302
77
312
75
299
78
282
82
269
84
283
81
247
86
190
88
179
90
176
91
181
89
175
92
155
93
134
96
135
95
148
94
88
99
89
98
107
97
81
100
40
101
138,400
1,370
21,170
57
159,600
340

25
2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard Powered by INRIX Traffic Data
Table 3. How Reliable is Freeway Travel in Your Town, 2014

Urban Area
Washington DC-VA-MD
Seattle WA
Chicago IL-IN
Houston TX
Miami FL
Boston MA-NH-RI
Detroit MI
Phoenix-Mesa AZ
San Diego CA
Atlanta GA
Freeway Planning Time Index

Value
Rank
3.06
3.75
1
3.48
2
3.41
4
3.30
6
3.16
10
3.15
11
3.13
12
2.85
15
2.81
17
2.80
18
2.66
21
2.66
21
2.65
23
2.48
30
2.41
33
Freeway Travel Time Index

Value
Rank
1.37
1.57
1
1.40
10
1.47
5
1.49
4
1.39
11
1.38
13
1.43
7
1.28
21
1.38
13
1.26
23
1.24
28
1.25
26
1.34
18
1.25
26
1.19
32
Freeway Commuter Stress

Index
Value
Rank
1.44
1.63
2
1.52
7
1.59
4
1.64
1
1.45
17
1.44
18
1.47
13
1.30
78
1.47
13
1.28
80
1.34
64
1.32
75
1.38
49
1.34
64
1.25
84

Freeway Planning Time IndexA travel time reliability measure that represents the total travel time that should be planned for a trip to be late for only 1 work trip per month. A PTI
of 2.00 means that 40 minutes should be planned for a 20-minute trip in light traffic (20 minutes x 2.00 = 40 minutes).
Freeway Travel Time IndexThe ratio of travel time in the peak period to the travel time at low volume conditions. A value of 1.30 indicates a 20-minute free-flow trip takes 26
minutes in the peak period (20 minutes x 1.30 = 26 minutes). Note that the TTI reported in Table 3 is only for freeway facilities to compare to the freeway-only PTI values.
Freeway Commuter Stress Index The travel time index calculated for only the peak direction in each peak period (a measure of the extra travel time for a commuter).
actual measure values should also be examined.
26
Table 3. How Reliable is Freeway Travel in Your Town, 2014, Continued

Urban Area
Portland OR-WA
San Jose CA
Denver-Aurora CO
San Juan PR
Baltimore MD
Charlotte NC-SC
Austin TX
Sacramento CA
Virginia Beach VA
Cincinnati OH-KY-IN
Orlando FL
Jacksonville FL
Providence RI-MA
Columbus OH
St. Louis MO-IL
Indianapolis IN
San Antonio TX
Memphis TN-MS-AR
Oklahoma City OK
Kansas City MO-KS
Milwaukee WI
Cleveland OH
Pittsburgh PA
Richmond VA

Value
Rank
2.46
3.27
7
3.24
8
3.21
9
2.97
13
2.93
14
2.85
15
2.72
20
2.61
24
2.58
25
2.58
25
2.52
29
2.42
32
2.39
34
2.37
35
2.36
36
2.34
37
2.27
39
2.25
42
2.21
44
2.18
46
2.16
47
2.13
49
2.12
51
2.12
51
2.08
55
2.08
55
1.99
59
1.97
60
1.96
62
1.80
77
1.76
80

Value
Rank
1.23
1.42
9
1.43
7
1.36
16
1.35
17
1.38
13
1.26
23
1.32
20
1.21
30
1.50
3
1.19
32
1.17
37
1.15
45
1.19
32
1.15
45
1.18
35
1.16
40
1.14
50
1.18
35
1.12
58
1.15
45
1.13
54
1.11
62
1.11
62
1.33
19
1.14
50
1.15
45
1.11
62
1.17
37
1.10
69
1.14
50
1.07
79

Index
Value
Rank
1.37
1.48
12
1.52
7
1.54
6
1.42
23
1.44
18
1.34
64
1.37
53
1.29
79
1.59
4
1.24
85
1.23
88
1.44
18
1.24
85
1.19
92
1.26
81
1.22
89
1.18
96
1.21
90
1.42
23
1.51
9
1.40
34
1.42
23
1.41
27
1.36
55
1.42
23
1.43
21
1.38
49
1.19
92
1.38
49
1.43
21
1.35
61
27


Urban Area
New Orleans LA
Baton Rouge LA
Honolulu HI
Hartford CT
Colorado Springs CO
Buffalo NY
Raleigh NC
Tucson AZ
Toledo OH-MI
New Haven CT
Albany NY
Birmingham AL
Bakersfield CA
Wichita KS
Grand Rapids MI
Columbia SC
Albuquerque NM
Rochester NY
Akron OH
Knoxville TN
Allentown PA-NJ
El Paso TX-NM
Tulsa OK
Fresno CA
Cape Coral FL
Dayton OH
Omaha NE-IA
Springfield MA-CT
McAllen TX
Provo-Orem UT

Value
Rank
2.08
3.46
3
3.32
5
2.80
18
2.58
25
2.54
28
2.30
38
2.21
44
2.13
49
2.11
53
2.11
53
2.07
57
2.05
58
1.97
60
1.96
62
1.95
64
1.93
65
1.89
67
1.88
68
1.87
69
1.83
72
1.83
72
1.82
74
1.82
74
1.78
78
1.73
81
1.73
81
1.72
84
1.70
87
1.68
88
1.65
90
1.65
90
1.62
92
1.53
94

Value
Rank
1.14
1.45
6
1.39
11
1.21
30
1.51
2
1.16
40
1.16
40
1.13
54
1.12
58
1.12
58
1.14
50
1.07
79
1.12
58
1.11
62
1.08
75
1.07
79
1.11
62
1.06
86
1.08
75
1.08
75
1.09
72
1.03
96
1.06
86
1.07
79
1.09
72
1.17
37
1.08
75
1.06
86
1.04
95
1.05
92
1.10
69
1.05
92
1.16
40
1.03
96

Index
Value
Rank
1.38
1.49
11
1.50
10
1.24
85
1.62
3
1.47
13
1.20
91
1.39
46
1.41
27
1.40
34
1.47
13
1.41
27
1.40
34
1.40
34
1.36
55
1.34
64
1.40
34
1.41
27
1.38
49
1.39
46
1.40
34
1.40
34
1.34
64
1.36
55
1.40
34
1.16
97
1.40
34
1.33
73
1.40
34
1.34
64
1.39
46
1.36
55
1.34
64
1.34
64
28

Freeway Planning Time IndexA PTI of 2.00 means that 40 minutes should be planned for a 20-minute trip in light traffic (20 minutes x 2.00 = 40 minutes).
Freeway Travel Time IndexA value of 1.30 indicates a 20-minute free-flow trip takes 26 minutes in the peak period (20 minutes x 1.30 = 26 minutes).

Urban Area
Boulder CO
Stockton CA
Anchorage AK
Boise City ID
Oxnard CA
Madison WI
Little Rock AR
Spokane WA
Winston-Salem NC
Jackson MS
Eugene OR
Worcester MA-CT
Beaumont TX
Salem OR
Corpus Christi TX
Pensacola FL-AL
Greensboro NC
Laredo TX
Brownsville TX
101 Area Average
Remaining Area Average

Value
Rank
1.76
2.48
30
2.27
39
2.26
41
2.23
43
2.15
48
1.92
66
1.85
70
1.84
71
1.81
76
1.78
78
1.73
81
1.72
84
1.71
86
1.68
88
1.62
92
1.47
95
1.47
95
1.44
97
1.44
97
1.41
99
1.35
100
1.32
101
2.66
1.74
2.41

Value
Rank
1.09
1.27
22
1.13
54
1.26
23
1.15
45
1.11
62
1.13
54
1.11
62
1.07
79
1.06
86
1.07
79
1.09
72
1.05
92
1.06
86
1.16
40
1.06
86
1.10
69
1.02
99
1.03
96
1.23
29
1.02
99
1.07
79
1.01
101
1.28
1.08
1.23

Index
Value
Rank
1.30
1.26
81
1.15
99
1.19
92
1.14
101
1.36
55
1.41
27
1.15
99
1.41
27
1.33
73
1.36
55
1.41
27
1.35
61
1.34
64
1.16
97
1.40
34
1.35
61
1.40
34
1.32
75
1.19
92
1.32
75
1.37
53
1.26
81
1.40
1.21
1.35

29
Table 4. Key Congestion Measures for 370 Urban Areas, 2014
Urban Area
Aberdeen-Bel Air S-Bel Air N MD
Abilene TX
Aguadilla-Isabela-San Sebastian PR
Albany GA
Alexandria LA
Altoona PA
Amarillo TX
Ames IA
Anderson IN
Anderson SC
Ann Arbor MI
Anniston AL
Antioch CA
Appleton WI
Arecibo PR
Asheville NC
Athens-Clarke County GA
Atlantic City NJ
Auburn AL
Augusta-Richmond County GA-SC
Avondale-Goodyear AZ
Bangor ME
Barnstable Town MA
Battle Creek MI
Bay City MI
Bellingham WA
Beloit WI-IL
Bend OR
Benton Harbor-St. Joseph-Fair Plain MI
Billings MT
Binghamton NY-PA
Bismarck ND
Blacksburg VA
Bloomington IN
Bloomington-Normal IL
Bonita Springs FL
Bowling Green KY
Bremerton WA
Bristol TN-VA
Brunswick GA
Burlington NC
Burlington VT
Camarillo CA
Canton OH
Cape Girardeau MO-IL
Carbondale IL
Carson City NV
Cartersville GA
Casa Grande AZ
Annual Hours of Delay

Total
Per Auto
(000) Commuter
4,533
1,039
4,840
1,342
1,376
1,095
3,087
452
1,317
1,057
8,658
987
4,448
2,896
1,931
7,849
2,340
6,514
1,272
12,338
2,893
822
7,520
1,128
957
1,460
420
1,164
774
1,595
2,679
969
695
1,036
1,495
6,731
1,219
3,265
923
888
1,176
1,983
1,229
4,761
676
855
681
858
537
20
9
16
13
15
13
14
4
14
13
28
11
15
12
13
26
17
24
15
30
13
14
29
13
13
12
6
12
15
12
16
10
7
9
10
19
14
16
12
11
9
17
17
16
10
11
7
13
6
Annual Congestion Cost

Total
$ per Auto
(Million $)
Commuter
112
24
130
31
34
24
72
9
31
27
194
23
100
73
51
178
52
152
30
282
70
19
163
25
23
33
11
31
18
35
64
21
15
24
33
148
29
77
22
20
26
46
27
107
15
20
15
20
14
2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard TTI Analysis Powered by INRIX Traffic Data
489
201
424
301
368
291
322
82
329
323
621
260
347
307
354
590
371
561
356
689
310
322
627
291
320
278
160
329
355
268
382
220
149
204
233
424
325
379
289
252
192
382
368
367
214
264
149
301
163
30
Table 4. Key Congestion Measures for 370 Urban Areas, 2014 (continued)
Total
Per Auto
Total
$ per Auto
Urban Area
(000) Commuter
(Million $)
Commuter
Casper WY
792
10
21
265
Cedar Rapids IA
1,479
7
31
153
Champaign IL
1,966
13
46
291
Charleston WV
3,399
21
78
481
Charlottesville VA
1,349
13
29
275
Chattanooga TN-GA
11,261
28
294
730
Cheyenne WY
914
11
24
295
Chico CA
829
8
19
179
Clarksville TN-KY
2,051
12
52
298
Cleveland TN
983
13
22
294
Coeur d'Alene ID
1,850
17
41
385
College Station-Bryan TX
2,588
14
63
344
Columbia MO
1,884
14
42
304
Columbus GA-AL
4,190
15
93
325
Columbus IN
681
8
16
191
Concord CA
21,712
35
466
752
Concord NC
2,562
12
59
269
Conroe-The Woodlands TX
3,744
14
83
307
Conway AR
770
10
17
229
Corvallis OR
608
6
15
149
Cumberland MD-WV-PA
908
14
23
345
Dalton GA
1,171
13
26
291
Danbury CT-NY
2,937
16
68
382
Danville IL
539
9
13
207
Danville VA-NC
734
9
16
202
Davenport IA-IL
5,335
18
120
402
Davis CA
553
7
13
169
Daytona Beach-Port Orange FL
4,944
23
114
524
Decatur AL
753
10
17
237
Decatur IL
1,119
11
27
266
DeKalb IL
641
8
14
187
Deltona FL
2,561
13
59
296
Denton-Lewisville TX
11,039
29
263
683
Des Moines IA
6,142
12
129
260
Dothan AL
1,236
15
30
370
Dover DE
1,332
11
31
249
Dover-Rochester NH-ME
906
10
20
219
Dubuque IA-IL
768
11
16
221
Duluth MN-WI
2,462
20
56
451
Durham NC
9,575
26
206
558
Eau Claire WI
1,145
10
30
275
El Centro-Calexico CA
439
4
10
87
El Paso de Robles-Atascadero CA
314
4
8
106
Elkhart IN-MI
2,107
14
52
337
Elmira NY
762
11
18
250
Erie PA
3,445
17
87
419
Evansville IN-KY
3,742
16
89
370
Fairbanks AK
635
9
15
212
Fairfield CA
1,980
14
42
303
Fajardo PR
547
6
15
151
Fargo ND-MN
5,255
26
110
551
Farmington NM
1,046
12
28
336
31
Total
Per Auto
Total
$ per Auto
Urban Area
(000) Commuter
(Million $)
Commuter
Fayetteville NC
6,163
18
131
393
Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers AR-MO
7,564
24
167
520
Flagstaff AZ
872
10
28
335
Flint MI
9,342
25
214
570
Florence AL
1,232
14
28
326
Florence SC
1,104
11
28
272
Florida-Imbrey-Barceloneta PR
892
12
24
310
Fond du Lac WI
498
6
13
160
Fort Collins CO
5,606
19
122
425
Fort Smith AR-OK
2,062
16
46
358
Fort Walton Beach-Navarre-Wright FL
4,897
23
107
494
Fort Wayne IN
9,252
28
212
641
Frederick MD
2,405
16
59
394
Fredericksburg VA
4,004
25
95
607
Gadsden AL
962
14
23
342
Gainesville FL
3,404
17
75
369
Gainesville GA
2,137
15
49
343
Galveston TX
505
6
11
122
Gastonia NC-SC
2,656
15
60
339
Gilroy-Morgan Hill CA
1,474
14
33
311
Glens Falls NY
1,222
17
29
391
Goldsboro NC
705
11
16
244
Grand Forks ND-MN
714
7
16
164
Grand Junction CO
1,363
10
30
212
Great Falls MT
776
11
17
234
Greeley CO
1,596
13
36
285
Green Bay WI
3,728
17
95
431
Greenville NC
1,525
11
34
255
Greenville SC
10,389
24
260
602
Guayama PR
1,193
14
32
383
Gulfport MS
4,463
19
98
411
Hagerstown MD-WV-PA
3,223
16
80
392
Hammond LA
757
10
19
239
Hanford CA
106
1
4
37
Harlingen TX
1,530
10
34
228
Harrisburg PA
10,342
23
254
562
Harrisonburg VA
815
10
18
237
Hattiesburg MS
1,159
13
26
298
Hazleton PA
656
13
15
283
Hemet CA
495
3
11
62
Hickory NC
4,423
19
98
427
High Point NC
2,866
16
63
345
Hinesville GA
462
7
10
169
Holland MI
1,688
15
37
341
Hot Springs AR
732
11
15
232
Houma LA
2,424
16
60
397
Huntington WV-KY-OH
3,280
16
77
362
Huntsville AL
7,253
23
159
510
Idaho Falls ID
621
6
14
135
Iowa City IA
740
6
16
125
Ithaca NY
867
16
20
370
Jackson MI
1,182
13
26
280
32
Total
Per Auto
Total
$ per Auto
Urban Area
(000) Commuter
(Million $)
Commuter
Jackson TN
1,024
13
28
367
Jacksonville NC
1,428
13
31
284
Janesville WI
611
8
16
209
Jefferson City MO
607
8
14
172
Johnson City TN
1,594
12
37
272
Johnstown PA
711
10
16
235
Jonesboro AR
1,089
15
24
338
Joplin MO
1,252
15
29
335
Juana Diaz PR
907
11
24
296
Kailua (Honolulu County)-Kaneohe HI
1,254
10
29
227
Kalamazoo MI
5,136
23
115
515
Kankakee IL
873
10
22
244
Kennewick-Richland WA
2,780
12
67
281
Kenosha WI
1,133
8
30
219
Killeen TX
2,533
11
58
254
Kingsport TN-VA
1,665
15
40
357
Kingston NY
1,482
17
34
394
Kissimmee FL
7,814
22
185
517
Kokomo IN
1,174
12
27
264
La Crosse WI-MN
1,350
12
35
323
Lady Lake-The Villages FL
606
5
14
111
Lafayette IN
2,473
15
59
363
Lafayette LA
7,047
26
194
715
Lafayette-Louisville-Erie CO
1,083
12
23
264
Lake Charles LA
2,352
15
64
414
Lake Havasu City AZ
358
4
11
114
Lake Jackson-Angleton TX
694
9
16
205
Lakeland FL
4,022
14
96
331
Lancaster PA
7,807
18
187
441
Lansing MI
7,742
24
168
513
Las Cruces NM
1,126
8
32
220
Lawrence KS
1,430
13
34
310
Lawton OK
838
8
19
187
Lebanon PA
580
7
14
166
Leesburg-Eustis-Tavares FL
1,279
9
31
203
Leominster-Fitchburg MA
1,546
13
34
283
Lewiston ID-WA
579
9
14
200
Lewiston ME
722
11
18
273
Lexington Park-Cal-Ches Ranch Est MD
743
15
16
329
Lexington-Fayette KY
8,250
27
199
656
Lima OH
938
12
25
325
Lincoln NE
5,544
19
124
428
Livermore CA
1,395
16
31
358
Lodi CA
571
8
13
179
Logan UT
793
8
25
234
Lompoc CA
440
6
10
126
Longmont CO
1,238
12
27
266
Longview TX
1,512
15
35
342
Longview WA-OR
985
15
24
367
Lorain-Elyria OH
2,550
14
58
308
Lubbock TX
2,933
12
67
269
Lynchburg VA
2,328
18
50
387
33
Total
Per Auto
Total
$ per Auto
Urban Area
(000) Commuter
(Million $)
Commuter
Macon GA
2,271
15
51
337
Madera CA
360
4
8
87
Manchester NH
2,302
13
53
311
Mandeville-Covington LA
1,753
18
45
470
Manhattan KS
478
5
11
109
Mankato MN
602
8
13
182
Mansfield OH
838
10
19
232
Manteca CA
623
7
16
177
Marysville WA
2,630
16
62
389
Mauldin-Simpsonville SC
886
7
22
169
Mayaguez PR
1,468
13
39
353
McKinney TX
1,811
9
43
215
Medford OR
1,989
11
47
267
Merced CA
1,317
9
33
218
Michigan City-La Porte IN-MI
844
12
21
297
Middletown OH
850
8
20
182
Midland MI
735
10
18
238
Midland TX
972
7
25
188
Mission Viejo-Lk Forest-San Clemente CA
17,389
28
361
590
Missoula MT
1,443
15
32
334
Mobile AL
10,396
30
236
670
Modesto CA
6,656
18
159
421
Monessen-California PA
563
8
13
183
Monroe LA
1,820
14
45
356
Monroe MI
829
9
19
201
Montgomery AL
6,494
24
149
553
Morgantown WV
1,065
14
24
311
Morristown TN
1,001
19
24
458
Mount Vernon WA
857
15
21
367
Muncie IN
1,063
11
25
247
Murrieta-Temecula-Menifee CA
3,084
7
72
162
Muskegon MI
2,697
16
59
348
Myrtle Beach-Socastee SC-NC
7,452
30
188
754
Nampa ID
2,109
13
47
283
Napa CA
1,178
13
26
290
Nashua NH-MA
3,372
14
78
324
New Bedford MA
1,563
10
34
219
Newark OH
621
7
14
167
North Port-Port Charlotte FL
1,806
10
41
216
Norwich-New London CT-RI
3,017
20
69
451
Ocala FL
1,994
12
47
276
Odessa TX
1,605
13
39
330
Ogden-Layton UT
10,408
18
339
581
Olympia-Lacey WA
3,929
20
94
481
Oshkosh WI
513
6
13
155
Owensboro KY
1,010
13
27
335
Palm Coast-Daytona Bch-Port Orange FL
9,849
20
230
471
Panama City FL
3,395
21
77
485
Parkersburg WV-OH
965
14
22
317
Pascagoula MS
778
14
18
323
Peoria IL
4,743
17
110
391
Petaluma CA
634
9
15
201
34
Total
Per Auto
Total
$ per Auto
Urban Area
(000) Commuter
(Million $)
Commuter
Pine Bluff AR
626
7
14
160
Pittsfield MA
556
7
12
150
Pocatello ID
656
9
15
199
Ponce PR
1,862
13
50
336
Port Huron MI
1,209
13
28
297
Port St. Lucie FL
8,123
19
189
448
Porterville CA
228
3
6
73
Portland ME
2,973
14
70
332
Portsmouth NH-ME
1,479
15
33
349
Pottstown PA
948
9
22
199
Prescott Valley-Prescott AZ
1,156
12
27
285
Pueblo CO
1,690
11
38
250
Racine WI
1,412
10
37
256
Radcliff-Elizabethtown KY
918
10
21
221
Rapid City SD
1,153
12
27
281
Reading PA
5,183
19
125
465
Redding CA
2,093
16
46
345
Reno NV
8,300
20
179
428
Roanoke VA
4,585
20
105
465
Rochester MN
1,581
13
34
282
Rock Hill SC
1,355
12
35
311
Rockford IL
7,221
23
173
558
Rocky Mount NC
714
11
15
228
Rome GA
1,029
16
24
361
Round Lk Bch-McHenry-Grayslake IL-WI
402
1
10
34
Saginaw MI
2,082
17
46
364
Salinas CA
2,037
10
47
233
Salisbury MD-DE
1,164
11
27
258
San Angelo TX
899
8
20
188
San German-Cabo Rojo-Sabana Grnd PR
749
6
20
159
San Luis Obispo CA
822
10
18
218
Santa Barbara CA
3,993
20
89
434
Santa Clarita CA
3,703
15
86
341
Santa Cruz CA
3,806
21
82
444
Santa Fe NM
1,790
19
42
437
Santa Maria CA
1,890
13
43
299
Santa Rosa CA
5,915
19
128
407
Saratoga Springs NY
843
11
20
267
Savannah GA
8,013
28
179
619
Scranton PA
8,297
21
188
473
Seaside-Monterey CA
1,606
13
35
287
Sheboygan WI
523
7
13
177
Sherman TX
735
9
19
228
Shreveport LA
8,412
27
222
713
Sierra Vista AZ
565
7
13
156
Simi Valley CA
690
5
14
110
Sioux City IA-NE-SD
598
5
14
127
Sioux Falls SD
2,743
15
66
368
Slidell LA
791
8
21
212
South Bend IN-MI
5,205
18
125
425
South Lyon-Howell MI
2,376
18
65
505
Spartanburg SC
3,250
16
82
406
35
Total
Per Auto
Total
$ per Auto
Urban Area
(000) Commuter
(Million $)
Commuter
Springfield IL
2,222
13
51
287
Springfield MO
7,403
25
166
556
Springfield OH
796
9
18
195
St. Augustine FL
1,055
13
23
275
St. Cloud MN
2,190
19
51
438
St. George UT
1,146
10
32
281
St. Joseph MO-KS
936
10
24
263
State College PA
516
5
11
116
Sumter SC
927
12
24
308
Syracuse NY
9,443
22
224
530
Tallahassee FL
5,846
28
130
621
Temple TX
1,014
11
26
267
Terre Haute IN
1,812
19
43
452
Texarkana TX-AR
1,014
12
25
294
Texas City TX
1,917
16
42
349
Thousand Oaks CA
5,486
25
116
527
Titusville FL
542
7
13
159
Topeka KS
2,533
16
62
388
Tracy CA
126
1
3
38
Trenton NJ
6,970
24
157
532
Turlock CA
111
1
3
31
Tuscaloosa AL
2,563
17
61
403
Twin Rivers-Highstown NJ
1,178
17
26
384
Tyler TX
2,028
14
53
379
Uniontown-Connellsville PA
453
9
10
200
Utica NY
2,288
19
53
433
Vacaville CA
665
7
14
143
Valdosta GA
1,246
15
29
351
Vallejo CA
3,828
21
83
456
Vero Beach-Sebastian FL
1,475
18
35
418
Victoria TX
1,014
14
24
336
Victorville-Hesperia CA
4,286
12
102
292
Villas NJ
800
12
19
286
Vineland NJ
1,150
11
26
262
Visalia CA
1,980
8
46
190
Waco TX
2,039
11
52
276
Waldorf MD
1,713
14
41
326
Walla Walla-WA-OR
258
4
7
118
Warner Robins GA
1,646
11
36
247
Waterbury CT
3,851
20
90
458
Waterloo IA
532
4
11
88
Watsonville CA
1,118
14
25
315
Wausau WI
868
11
22
283
Weirton-Steubenville WV-OH-PA
742
10
18
239
Wenatchee WA
772
10
19
251
West Bend WI
658
9
17
229
Westminster-Eldersburg MD
1,101
14
27
354
Wheeling WV-OH
954
11
24
275
Wichita Falls TX
1,031
10
25
239
Williamsport PA
1,045
20
23
434
Wilmington NC
4,905
20
106
435
Winchester VA
977
13
22
293
36
Total
Per Auto
Total
$ per Auto
Urban Area
(000) Commuter
(Million $)
Commuter
Winter Haven FL
2,888
13
71
329
Yakima WA
2,187
15
52
368
Yauco PR
443
5
12
121
York PA
3,801
15
90
368
Youngstown OH-PA
7,744
20
181
466
Yuba City CA
1,212
9
30
227
Yuma AZ-CA
1,531
11
41
292
Zephyrhills FL
602
12
14
274
37
38
References
1. Current Employment Statistics, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor,
Washington D.C., http://www.bls.gov/ces/home.htm
2. National Average Speed Database, 2009 to 2014. INRIX. Kirkland, WA. www.inrix.com
3. Federal Highway Administration. "Highway Performance Monitoring System," 1982 to 2010
Data. November 2012. Available: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms.cfm
4. SHRP2 Project C11, Chapter 3. Reliability Analysis Tool: Technical Documentation and
Users Guide Prepared by: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. and Weris, Inc. Prepared for:
Transportation Research Board July 2013. Available:
http://www.tpics.us/tools/documents/SHRP-C11-Reliability-Tech-Doc-and-User-Guide.pdf
5. Urban Mobility Scorecard Methodology. Texas A&M Transportation Institute, College
Station, Texas. 2015. Available: http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/methodology
6. Development of Diurnal Traffic Distribution and Daily, Peak and Off-Peak Vehicle Speed
Estimation Procedures for Air Quality Planning. Final Report, Work Order B-94-06,
Prepared for Federal Highway Administration, April 1996
7. Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21): A Summary of Highway
Provisions. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,
Office of Policy and Governmental Affairs, July 17, 2012. Available:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/summaryinfo.cfm.
39
2015
URBAN MOBILITY
Scorecard
David Schrank Bill Eisele Tim Lomax

Texas A&M Transportation Institute
mobility.tamu.edu
Jim Bak
INRIX, Inc.
inrix.com

2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AUGUST 2015

2015 URBAN MOBILITY SCORECARD

Published jointly by The Texas A&M Transportation Institute and INRIX

2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard

2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard

2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard

2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard

Exhibit 2. National Congestion Measures, 1982 to 2014

2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard

Turning Congestion Data Into Insight

2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard

One Page of Congestion Problems

More Detail About Congestion Problems

Exhibit 3. Congestion Growth Trend Hours of Delay per Auto Commuter

Small = less than 500,000

Large = 1 million to 3 million

Exhibit 4. Percent of Delay for Each Day

Exhibit 5. Percent of Delay for Hours of Day

Mon Tue Wed Thu

Congestion on Freeways and Streets

Exhibit 6. Percent of Delay for Road Types

Urban Areas Over

Urban Areas Under

Rush Hour Congestion

Exhibit 7. Peak Period Congestion in 2014

About 26% of trips are in

Congestion Cost by Vehicle Type

Since the Congestion Decline During the Recession .

Exhibit 8. Number of Years Before Congestion Returned to Pre-Recession Levels

The Trouble With Planning Your Trip

Exhibit 10. Extra Time to Make Important Trips

Areas with More Than

2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard

Areas with Less Than

The Future of Congestion

2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard

Congestion Relief An Overview of the Strategies

2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard

2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard

Analysis Using the Best Congestion Data

2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard

National Performance Measurement

2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard

2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard

2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard

2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard

National Congestion Tables

Table 1. What Congestion Means to You, 2014

Congestion Cost per

Very Large Urban Areasover 3 million population.

2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard

Table 1. What Congestion Means to You, 2014, Continued

Congestion Cost per

Large Urban Areasover 1 million and less than 3 million population.

2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard

Table 1. What Congestion Means to You, 2014, Continued

Congestion Cost per

Medium Urban Areasover 500,000 and less than 1 million population.

2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard

Table 1. What Congestion Means to You, 2014, Continued

Congestion Cost per

Very Large Urban Areasover 3 million population.

2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard

Table 2. What Congestion Means to Your Town, 2014